Editorial: Changing the charter should not be so easy

Tuesday

Jul 9, 2013 at 2:00 AM

Just because something is legal does not mean it is right. With the latest ruling by a judge that Sullivan County lawmakers were following the law when they made it possible for five, not six, members to hire or fire a county manager, the latest confrontation over this very important matter has come to a close. But this should not end the discussion.

Just because something is legal does not mean it is right. With the latest ruling by a judge that Sullivan County lawmakers were following the law when they made it possible for five, not six, members to hire or fire a county manager, the latest confrontation over this very important matter has come to a close. But this should not end the discussion.

There is nothing stopping future coalitions of county legislators from adjusting that threshold, as it has been adjusted in the past. Sullivan County could go on requiring five votes, then six, then five again for this important decision. It would be perfectly legal but potentially chaotic.

There are two issues here that remain unresolved despite the ruling on the most recent votes to change the county charter as it is applied to hiring and firing the most important employee in the county.

First, should it take more than a mere majority to alter the charter? Second should legislators or county voters have that power?

Those who wanted to get rid of the county manager saw the six-vote requirement from the opposite perspective. It put too much power, they maintained, in the hands of four legislators who could block any action. But any government that imposes a supermajority requirement does so for a very good reason. It saves elected bodies from acting in a hasty and emotional way, especially when the majority is in a hurry to pin the blame on someone.

To get that crucial sixth vote to fire the manager, the other five had to make a reasonable case, appealing to one other legislator or include the manager's performance as part of the next election campaign. Instead, they used their majority power to change the charter. They already agreed with each other, so they did not have to bother selling the idea to anybody else, either in the Legislature or anywhere else in the county.

Now, they are looking to hire a replacement. With so many public employees, especially in management positions, having been downsized in the past few years, they should have no trouble gathering impressive records. But those strong applicants are likely to keep their contacts and resumes updated, knowing that it only takes an angry majority to end their tenure. And while the new manager is on the job, that lack of security will have an intimidating effect in a county that needs bold and creative management. It's hard to be a leader with a vision for the future when you're always looking over your shoulder to make sure that you have not antagonized five legislators.

To get back the more secure and less volatile climate that Sullivan needs, voters should take another look at the laws governing the county and resurrect the six-vote requirement for hiring and firing a county manager. This would distance politics and personalities from the task, although nothing could or should remove them completely. And just to avoid this turmoil in the future, voters need to make sure that they, not five, six or 11 legislators, keep the power to change the county charter no matter what the issue that is involved.